Shemtov wrote:eldin raigmore wrote:Hyolobrika wrote:... antivocative ... vocative which identifies the source of the knowledge.
Why call these cases "vocative" and "antivocative"?
Aren't they more like evidential than like "O Caesar" or "Hey Arnold" or "Lugal-e" -- case-endings that make nouns into terms of address, i.e. vocatives as that word is usually meant?
.
Personally, I would call the Antivocative "Quotative" -maybe with a direct and an indirect distinction?
Wouldn't "quotative" be a mood (or mode or modality) rather than a "case"? And thus, a verbal accident rather than a nominal one?
OTOH, if there is a "hearsay" evidential, there could be a "direct hearsay" evidential ("I heard this from an eyewitness") and an "indirect hearsay" evidential ("I heard this from someone else who heard it from someone").
FYI @Hyolobrika:
Epistemic modality (or epistemic mood) answers the question "just how sure am I (the speaker)?".
Evidentiality answers the question "exactly how can I be as sure as I am?".
Both are verbal accidents; mood/mode/modality is a "major" one* and evidentiality is a "minor" one**.
*(The five "major" verbal accidents are aspect, mood/mode/modality, polarity, tense, and voice. It seems most natlangs' verbs have mandatory marking of at least two of these, and at least optional marking of all (or nearly all?); though some grammarians analyze some languages as having two different dimensions of modality/mode/mood, so those languages
might have as many as six "major" verbal accidents).
**(The most common "minor" verbal accidents seem to be evidentiality, mirativity, pluractionality, validationality. "Empathic focus" aka "focus-of-empathy" aka "perspective" aka "point-of-view" might be another, and might also belong on that list. And there are probably others as well; directionality and politeness, for instance, though IIANM neither is very
commonly a
mandatorily-marked
verbal accident.)
***(I am leaving out any agreement with the nominal and/or pronominal accidents of the core participants (subject, primary object, secondary objects).)
[hr][/hr]
Omzinesý wrote: Hyolobrika wrote:- Direct subject / ergative
- Indirect subject / causative
What do direct and indirect subjects mean?
I would bet that one of them is the instigator or "agent of cause" and the other is the "causee" or "agent of effect".
FYI @Hyolobrika:
One of them instigates whatever action the clause says, the other actually performs that action.
Either or both could control or effect the action.
An agent is any entity (nearly always an animate entity, capable of volition; otherwise it would be called a "force" instead of an "agent") which controls and/or effects and/or instigates and/or performs the action that is the nucleus of the clause.
Causative clauses can have more than one agent; one (the instigator) makes or persuades the other (the causee) to perform the action.
Doubly-causative clauses can have more than two agents; an initial instigator, a middle agent, and a final performer.
@Omzinesý and @Hyolobrika both:
Even if I were right in my "bet", it would not be clear to me which of the two agents in a causative clause Hyolobrika means by "direct subject" and which s/he means by "indirect subject".
[hr][/hr]
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
At 2017/01/09 14:50 (Mon Jan 9 2:50 PM) I sent the following PM to Hyolobrika:
Edit: eldin raigmore wrote:Subject: Random ideas: Morphosyntax
Hi, Hyolobrika!
With respect to the post quoted below:
Hyolobrika wrote:
- Direct subject / ergative
- Indirect subject / causative
- Thing affected or to which given
- Thing given / instrument / verb
-
Benefactive
- Approvative (with the approval of __)
- Intending to affect __ in some way (different from the other two objects)
(With the positive suffix it becomes benefactive)
EDIT: Oh, and an antivocative as well as a regular vocative which identifies the source of the knowledge.
You haven't replied to any of the responses (at least, you haven't replied on-thread).
This has made me worry;
Maybe you thought we were criticizing your idea(s)?
Maybe we scared you off?
If so, please don't be scared off!
And please don't think we were criticizing your ideas; instead we were trying to understand them.
You may have thought we were saying you weren't using linguistic terminology correctly; and maybe we were indeed wondering about that.
But, even if you were "using it wrong", please understand that that has no bearing at all on how good your ideas are or how good your language will be!
What your conlang actually does is much more important than how you choose to describe it.
[hr][/hr]
I look forward to reading your next post about this interesting case system.